Re: branding debian releases
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 12:19:39PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote:
>> Stable --> CURRENT_STABLE
>> Testing --> ALMOST_STABLE
>> Unstable --> NEW_NOT_PROVEN
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unstable
>
> 1. a) Tending strongly to change: unstable weather.
> b) Not constant; fluctuating: unstable vital signs.
> 2. a) Fickle.
> b) Lacking control of one's emotions; marked by unpredictable
> behavior.
> 3. Not firmly placed; unsteady: an unstable ladder.
>
> Unstable seems like an accurate name to me.
Since your dictonairy is not aware of the term "unstable" in the
computer-world, it is not of much use in my humble opinion. Every
profession has his own jargon or language, and gives common words a
slightly different meaning sometimes.
In computer-world unstable means: is known to crash too often, or
something similar. It sounds like it is flaky, buggy crap :).
LOL, this reminds of the this UserFriendly strip some years ago with Greg
on top of a NT server, to reach some upper shelf in a cupboard, saying:
hmm, this server is actually pretty stable!
I am running a production server on unstable for over a year now with only
some really minor issues (4 or 5 things took me more than 10 minutes to
fix but were no major showstoppers). This machine needs hardly any
attention at all, and is running a postfix mailserver, courier-imap,
apache, subversion, squirrelmail, phpcollab, several zope/plone websites,
phpgroupware, mailman mailinglists, squid proxy server for my LAN, Samba
for fileserving and PDC for my LAN etcetera. For me and my users it has
proven more than stable.
However, I am going to move some of the above services to a rack-mounted
machine at an ISP soon. I *will* run stable there (with some backports)
because this machines needs to *absolutely* as stable as possible. (The
reason I am moving is of bandwith concerns and has nothing to do with
Debian).
Pim
Reply to: